Automated Summary
Key Facts
The court affirmed the order denying the motion to vacate a default judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) because lack of standing cannot be raised for the first time in such a motion. The judgment in favor of a plaintiff lacking standing is voidable, not void.
Issues
- Whether a lack of standing can be raised for the first time in a motion to vacate a default judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). The court held that it cannot be raised at this stage, citing Phadael v. Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Ams., 83 So. 3d 893, 895 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), which states that even if a plaintiff lacks standing, the judgment is voidable, not void.
- Whether courts can sanction litigants for citing non-existent legal authorities, including those generated by artificial intelligence. The court emphasized that attorneys and pro se litigants are responsible for ensuring all cited authorities are real, accurate, and applicable, and that submitting fictitious case law is sanctionable under Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a).
Holdings
- The court emphasized that citing fictitious or nonexistent legal authorities in filings is sanctionable. It referenced prior cases (e.g., Goya v. Hayashida, Russell v. Mells, Gutierrez v. Gutierrez) and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410(a) to caution that attorneys and pro se litigants must verify the accuracy of all cited authorities, including those generated by artificial intelligence.
- The court affirmed the order denying the motion to vacate a default final judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b), holding that lack of standing cannot be raised for the first time in such a motion. The judgment in favor of a plaintiff lacking standing is voidable, not void, and therefore does not invalidate the default judgment.
Legal Principles
- Lack of standing cannot be raised for the first time in a Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) motion. A judgment in favor of a plaintiff lacking standing is voidable, not void.
- Courts may impose sanctions for citing fictitious or fabricated legal authorities. Litigants must verify the accuracy of all cited cases and ensure they are real and applicable.
Precedent Name
- Friend v. Serpa
- Gutierrez v. Gutierrez
- Goya v. Hayashida
- Phadael v. Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Ams.
- Russell v. Mells
Judge Name
- Ciklin
- Gross
- Kuntz
Passage Text
- Friend v. Serpa, 425 So. 3d 51, 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025) (cautioning the pro se litigant about sanctions for citing 'phantom authority').
- Lack of standing cannot be raised for the first time in a rule 1.540 motion. Phadael v. Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Ams., 83 So. 3d 893, 895 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Additionally, '[e]ven where a judgment is entered in favor of a plaintiff that lacks standing, the judgment is merely voidable, not void.' Id. Accordingly, we affirm.
- We write separately to address a troubling issue in appellant's briefing. Multiple authorities cited by appellant in his filings, in both the trial court and this court, do not exist. Courts depend upon the accuracy and candor of citations presented by litigants. The submission of fictitious or fabricated case law—whether the product of carelessness, misunderstanding, or reliance on generative artificial-intelligence tools—is sanctionable.